PUBLIC JESUS, a review: Election Year 2012

Is Jesus an appropriate foundation for Christian ethics, or must we look elsewhere?

Desperate and a bit clueless after my first year in ministry, I enrolled in George Fox Evangelical Seminary in the fall of 1999. One of my first classes was “Christian Ethics” with the primary textbook being, “Mere Morality” by Lewis Smedes. My professor so unapologetically answered the question above with, “Duh! Of course not” that it was never even asked or entertained.

A standard answer for many evangelicals at the time, but I was stunned.

Author Tim Suttle’s answer in his powerful new book, Public Jesus, is equally stunning, though completely opposite. With equal parts creativity and courage Suttle encourages us to base all of life, and all of our ethics, on Jesus. He blows up the “private faith” myth not so much through detailed argument, but by inviting us to believe, and by showing us what faithful daily public witness is.

And you’ll love him for it. Indeed, Suttle is part of a new thriving core of evangelicals who are proudly calling the church to image Christ in life, or, as he refers to it, live “cruciform” lives. I’m utterly thrilled to see this transformation over such a short period of time.

And he’s relentless in his insistence that our faith is both Jesus-centered and public . In the introduction he says, “God belongs in the public square because the public square belongs to God.” He then spends the rest of his work describing what such a cruciform public life looks like: through and at work, in worship and rest, in our public language and in our allegiance.

Public Jesus will challenge you to examine your own faith as he pushes out what it means to live our whole lives as though we actually believe Jesus is Lord. His chapters on vocation, Sabbath, and Eucharist fall slightly short by weakening the tension created early in the book between the publicness and Jesus-ness of our faith. (With his chapters on work and Sabbath not being Jesus-y enough, and Eucharist not being public enough. Regardless, they are still excellent!).

But he’s at his best when fleshing out the decidedly political nature of the Gospel and lifestyle of Jesus. He suggests, following Hauerwas and Yoder before him, that living our shared common life together in cruciformity is a “profoundly political act.” He then contrasts the politics of Jesus with the current American political scene and suggests that “major surgery” is required for we Christians to faithfully follow the Public Jesus.

But is this too-short work up for such major surgery? It’s unlikely that was his intent, though he certainly provides several helpful tools for the work better left to communities than individuals anyway. He helpfully deconstructs “the spectrum” of choices available in the American political scene (Liberal-Conservative, Secularism-Fundamentalism, Democrat-Republican, etc…) and the basic promise from all on the spectrum of potential utopia. Jesus provides us with a core third way, and identifying with Jesus alone is the foundational tool for those whose primary citizenship should be in God’s kingdom and not Caesars’. The book’s true value is in calling us to do the major surgery for ourselves. A task I’d invite you to join me in.

Suttle’s book, like my research paper, would not have passed muster in my evangelical seminary ethics class. But no one’s looking for a grade anyway. What we need to know is does it help us process Christian faithfulness in this complex, multiple-fronts war, corporate-driven, post 9/11 Election Year 2012?

One of the cruciform areas of faith that Tim practices so well, but is limited by the book medium, is community dialogue. So I’ve asked author Tim Suttle to dialogue with us directly. He graciously agreed to help deepen the conversation surrounding the Christian witness to the state, and in particular issues in this election year. My next post will be a dialogue between he and I regarding Election Year 2012 (for more posts on Election year 2012 click here). Before signing off, let me say unequivocally that framing Christian ethics around Jesus and cruciformity is absolutely essential today. Any book that invites us to do so is worth the read.

I recommend Public Jesus to all my readers! Find it here for a great afternoon read. Tim blogs at Paperback Theology and tweets @tim_suttle, which you may love as much as I do. Check them out, then come back next week when Tim addresses the questions posted in the first comment below. Don’t forget to add your questions, and let’s dialogue!

So what do you think? Is Jesus up to the challenge of being the basis of all Christian ethics? What are the tools needed for the major surgery of separating Christianity from American civil religion?

Rev. Troyer: You asked, “Is Jesus up to the challenge of being the basis of all Christian ethics?” At first glance the answer would seem obvious … but what is the full nature of God’s revelation, and what is our understanding of Jesus? Marty, here I must raise concern about a repeated emphasis in your blog, as well as in many posts by others from a wide spectrum of views: your presentation of Jesus often seems to imply that the “red-letter” words recorded in Scripture are all that matters in the debate, and your focus is more on Jesus’ example of right living, or orthopraxis, than on anything else. Somewhere along the way, Marty, it seems that the example of Jesus’ life often (fortunately, not always) is transmogrified into something uncomfortably similar to a politically liberal ethic as it is usually defined today … and most certainly not a “third way” as I sense you would like to present Christian ethics.

What do the Scriptures say? Well, no doubt that Jesus was fully human, “identifying with us in our weakness,” as the writer of Hebrews. No doubt that Jesus called us “friends,” and even “brothers,” as in John’s Gospel. And no doubt that Jesus was born into a Jewish culture, into a real human family, and brought up within the mores of that family and culture, with all that implies. But, Marty, addressing the question, “Is Jesus up to the challenge …?” cannot end there.

For the Scriptures also bear witness that “He is the image of the invisible God … in him all things were created … he is before all things, and in him all things hold together … and he is the head of the body, the church … so that in everything he might be supreme.” (Colossians 1, with similar emphases by the author of Hebrews, in the Revelation of John [“the beginning and the end”], and the preamble to the Gospel of John [“In the beginning was the Word …”]. To know who Jesus is, we must also heed these passages and consider their implications.

Do we really do that, Rev. T.?

I would fully agree that Jesus is the basis of Christian ethics, but only if that basis is presented *fully.* Not as a watered-down or myopic “Life of Christ” narrative that reveals more about the modern narrator than about Jesus. Not in culpable scientific and technical ignorance of the Creation and of our understanding of it, because *all things hold together* in Jesus, including the created world. Not ever in subservience to a utopian vision or to the worldview du jour of populist discourse or notional scholarship, as we do not proclaim Jesus as merely useful or relevant to *our* principles or ideals. And, Marty, not as a mere antithesis to a “complex, multiple-fronts war, corporate-driven, post-9/11″ vision of evil as you see it.

As a first challenge, Marty, I’d note that one of Jesus’ major achievements in public ministry was to *unite* a political Zealot, a wealthy tax collector, some working poor, and other disparate folks. He drew the support of wealthy women of means as well as that of harlots and soldiers. Even some of the reformers (Pharisees) were drawn to Jesus. I strongly doubt that this rare unity was achieved principally *through* political action, although the Scriptures bear abundant witness that political implications, among other things, *proceeded from* Jesus’ ministry. Marty, at this point I’d have to say that little of your blog has been “unifying” in the way I see Jesus’ early ministry proceeding … but I’m of course open to rebuttal. If *unity* of quite disparate political and personal voices is a core element of a Christian ethic, or a witness to Jesus himself, how do you propose to achieve it?? Can your view of a “public Jesus” draw persons from all points of the political, economic, relational and intellectual spectra?

M4,
I love your example of Jesus being able to unify folks. What an encouraging reminder in today’s polarized climate! I, as I’m sure you, have seen so many discussions on [pick your issue] where folks are talking past each other rather than really seeking to listen and discern. FB is a champion of this kind of back and forth, rather than dialogue.
Blogs are also part of this polarization, I think you are correct. I’ve been disappointed in the level of dialogue that the comments section of this blog have generated. But, and I say this with all humility, I have NOT been disappointed in the dialogue that it has sparked offline. Feedback to the blog in the comments section is clearly leaning in a very particular direction. But the relationships that it has spawned are quite diverse, quit uniting, and genuinely very exciting.

One key difference that I will again point out: most blog commenters are anonymous, such as yourself. I do not expect to have, nor have I accomplished, deep relationship with anonymous individuals.

Thanks, Rev. T., for your kind words. Let me use them to segue into a serious question: in what way(s) do unity and “cruciformity” (as Suttle puts it) work together to bear witness to Jesus?

My sense from your blogs is that self-sacrifice (usually of wealth or amenities) and identification with the oppressed are core values in your approach. You and I would agree that Scripture contains strong testimony favoring these themes. However, we may strongly differ after that initial point of agreement.

For instance, I’d argue that self-sacrifice for one’s fellow soldiers or for unarmed civilians, as in military service, has undeniably Christ-like elements even if one abjures the general idea of war. I doubt that you’d agree with that, Marty, or at the very best you’d dismiss it with faint praise. As a second point of contention, you may define the “oppressed” largely in class-based, disadvantaged, or material terms – it’s so strongly emphasized in your blogs that I find it difficult to believe that you spend much time thinking in alternative terms. Partly due to personal experience, and partly from counseling others, I’d tend to view the worst kinds of oppression as emotional, relational or spiritual in nature, and involving those violated or bruised by social structures that you and many others might support as “doing good.” I’ve raised the latter concern previously.

Perhaps, Marty, both you and Mr. Suttle could give some thoughts on this. How would you suggest uniting these or similarly disparate approaches in a “cruciform community?”

This is a good question, putting two values in dialogue in such a way.
Yes, I clearly have a high regard for living like Jesus (how he lived, taught, died and rose, etc…), and that would strongly include a since of unity. The life of Jesus calls us to give up so much more than just material comforts: our rights, our identification with nation state, our power and privelege, vocation, and yes even our lives. While you would find value in a militarized self-sacrifice, I would disagree that this is the highest, purest, or most obvious expression of self sacrifice. Putting your life on the line for the sake of the gospel, and for the others, does not require carrying a weapon and a willingness to kill to do so. One thinks of Christian PeaceMaker Teams as an excellent example of Christians willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the other. And they do it without being militarized themselves, but instead as a nonviolent presence in the midst of war and tension.

Having said earlier that I find value in putting the Jesus ethic into dialogue with unity, I must also say that I’m not sure we see that in the same way. I almost get the sense from you that unity should really be read as the majority Christian opinion, and that one must be willing to soften the edges of a unique Christian position as mine for the sake of having a unified Christian voice. I couldn’t agree with that approach due to the high value I place on the minority prophetic voice and the aberrant nature of Christendom.

As for who qualifies as “oppressed,” we’ll have to continue to disagree. I do not in any way discount that the category of people you minister to are oppressed, but I will continue to speak loudly for those to whom the system itself (the laws, the institutions, the very culture of our day) have also oppressed. Your fear of anything that is remotely connected to Marxism aside, there are indeed injustices in our world that reside outside the human heart. One need not be a leftist, socialist, communist, marxist, liberal, etc… to see and agree with this basic sociological premise of the way that we are wired. As a close friend of mine recently shared, a more sociological approach to the injustices in our world (poverty and wealth, racism, health care, etc…) may very well be one of the key differences between conservative evangelicals and a guy like myself who stands in the Anabaptis/Mennonite tradition of faith.

Everyone is basing their beliefs on a book, created by the Catholic Church, at least 50 to 120 years after the death of Jesus. What about the heretical books, condemned by the Early Church? What if they were meant to be included in the original group of writings that became the modern Bible?
How can someone be gnostic, if one allows others to pick and choose one’s learning? Marty speaks for a few hundred thousand out of more than a billion Christians. Can they all be wrong, and the Mennonites know the true way, based on the King James version of the picked over Catholic Bible?

I should have mentioned that today 30,000 new converts to Christ will become born again today in China … this has been happening for quite sometime and dosent seem to be letting up…

this actually says that tomorrows world will look entirely different from the ones past… The religious right may rise up in China someday perhaps a couple hundred years… Chnese must first learn obnoxious pride and arrogance as a new characteristic in their culture; before trying to shove Christianity down the throat of remaining unconverted population…

I find it VERY INTERESTING how liberals accept such an uncompromising people while condemning people who DO compromise with you. Muslims have a TERRIBLE track record of human rights, especially regarding the rights of women, and you constantly bash Christians. I can only come to two conclusions… Either you’re AFRAID you’ll end up like this comedian if you dare criticize Islam OR you hate Christians so much that you’d embrace evil to join in your hatred. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Goldwing,
I confess I can’t see myself in your comments. It would be of great help to me if you could show me both where I bash Christians, and more importantly, my “kissing up to the Muslims.” I also could use some help on identifying my fantasy world, but we’ll stick with what’s more concrete. Can you provide me quotes from what I say that leads you to believe I don’t love the church? Or even, for that matter, mentioned Islam at all?

Your link, if accurate (Fox news leaves some room to be desired), is terrible and despicable. If you’re sharing that with me to cover over the crimes of the Christian church, I’m afraid I’d have to say it is more important for myself as a Christian to pull the plank out of my own eye first.

Thanks, I’d respect your response to my questions. (If I am the enemy, it’s time I found out).

Marty,
you do not bash Christianity, but as is often the case, those who identify as Christians get the whole think backward, and think that because they identify themselves as Christian, what they believe and do must be what Christianity actually is. Not that different from people who identify themselves as Patriots, but send others to die and tax others instead of themselves, see these actions as Patriotic.

It gets humorous when someone gets offended at a Pastor for being preachy about the path that should be followed. Others, not I, fall short of following the straight and narrow path, so why are you “bashing” me? Especially if the Pastor it took me so long to find says I am doing just fine and all of my woes are due to God’s wrath at those sins tolerated by my country’s Constitution.

Jesus did not live in a democracy, although democracy was not unknown to them. A couple centuries before, the nation-state of Athens had enjoyed over a century of democratic rule, and Greeks- Athenians in particular, were the educators of the Roman Empire. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek. But Jesus had nothing to say about representative democracy. What most of the modern evangelicals miss, is that Jesus was not in the public square imposing Christianity, or promoting state religion, he was visible in what he did and said, including living peacefully under the rule of a different kind of State Religion – what was for all intents and purposes to the Jews, a “secular” state. Even his victory over sin an death came in the fomr of NOT taking up a fight against sin, not rising up to take power, not trying to force anyone to follow the Way, as so many expected a Messiah would.

So, when people try to impose thier belief, their morality through law, they are bashing Jesus, and when they force the Public Square to be a “Christian” public square for all, they are bashing Jesus’s life and death. After all, it ceases to be a Public Square when you vote to take it private. Jesus’ way, in a nutshell, is to reach out, not to conquer. Conquering at the ballot box is still conquering.

Oh, and don’t be too discouraged when people mistake giving Muslims and Atheists the same rights as Christians as “embracing” those beliefs. Not everyone has the mental range to understand a concept like “tollerance” and assumes that the only two possibilities are “attack” and “embrace”, so if you are not attacking, you must be embracing, and vice versa. Hence, not embracing all behaviors or beliefs by Chritians is intollerant, and not attacking all behaviors and beliefs of Muslims is too tollerant.

I find that most of the people who dialogue along these lines are the “domestic enemies” my Oath of Enlistment mentioned in 1963…and that includes you…Pastor. I laughed at that phrase then. I am no longer laughing.

You haven’t said enough to help me to know why I’m on your “domestic enemies” list. Given how powerful of a statement that is, can you flesh that out a bit more to me? Do you think that my faith in Jesus is dangerous? Do you think that my faith, like the early church’s, is “turning the world upside down”? Do you take offense at the notion that Jesus lays claim to all areas of your life, including your work as a Marine?

Seriously, I’d love to have a response, because as someone who professes and deeply believes I am seeking the peace of our world, I’d like to know why I’m your enemy. Thanks.

Anyone who questions the idea that war is a good thing is a domestic enemy, because they aid our external enemies by emboldening them, giving them the courage to attack us knowing that we are not all one in resolve to fight, and we have no stomach for blood.

This is the line that comes out every time we do not have a legitimate reason to go to war, and it is very effective at stifling opposition to the build up to that war.

Forget that this is one of the primary reasons for Freedom of Speech, the primary reason for a representative government, to give voice to all.

But if you doubt that God wants us to make Earth into the dominion of America, and America the dominion of God through violence and coercion as necessary, then you must be a commie pinko gay spy or something.

Pastor a few ago on 20/20 special on hell. Interviw with Islam leader indicated there are 500 levels of hell. He went on to say, Islam belief is once members reach heaven, mansions await them, they will live like kings and queens, they will young servants waiting on them hand and foot.Much like just ask and thy shall receive. Mr Suttle’s book on Public Jesus, in asking how does his book coincide with the public Mohammed,Buddha, Krishna ? It’s rather dizzing.Which one leads us to the promise land? What I don’t like is this bit – politicians are politicians because they genuinely want to do the people good. They’re politicians because they want power. Jesus looking down onto the earth he will see politicians cannot contain that eagerness for power and glory. There is rampant corruption, greed.. I would of liked to see Suttle’s book address all faiths as each one is different.Zoe

Zoe, if I’m understanding you correctly, you would like feedback on how it is that Christians should relate to people of other faiths who express their faith very publicly. Is that accurate?

As a Christian, I think it’s fair to say that both Tim and I are writing predominantly to a Christian audience. Meaning that we’re concerned with issues of christian faith and its practice. For me, in reading Public Jesus, the core theme is that we Christians need to see Jesus as Lord of all life: including our public selves. He’s strongly suggesting that for Christians, we need to base all of our ethics on Jesus. While this is not new or novel, it is clearly not agreed upon by all Christians everywhere. Once we’ve entered into that belief (that Jesus matters for ethics), it’s natural to need to flesh out what that looks like in our relations with the state. And so I think your question is great: how do we also flesh that out in our relations with people of other faiths.

Jesus would not be eligible to vote in the upcoming election because his citizenship is in The Kingdom rather than the U.S. Government. He would have refused all of the marks of citizenship of the U.S. (drivers license, voter registration, social security number, etc.) and would not have taken the oaths required to get these creditials. Because his Father (Patra) is where he directs his allegence and obedience he would not be considered patriotic (patra) which requires giving allegence and obedience to the U.S. Government.

In short…things would not go well for Jesus in our country or any of of our IRS 401(c)3 established churches.

Jesus would never choose a leader for himself. He has chosen Kings for the nation of Israel…and he has chosen leaders for every nations from his throne…he has indeed, however, commanded all our votes even before this and every election ever made… or in other words he has already counted all the votes ever.

Carpenter, I disagree with your first sentence. I couldn’t say as much. What I could say is that Jesus subverts the governmental, religious, and cultural leaders at nearly every turn. He does so in his lifestyle, teachings, and perhaps most clearly in his death. He unmasks the powers for what they are.

The very last thing Jesus is concerned with, or that the 4 Gospels broadcast, is Jesus as “Good Citizen #1.” So I also disagree with your second sentence.

The vast cultural gap between his and our day, with the switch from imperial occupation to democratic citizenship, makes anachronistic all questions as to WWJD?

But that does not mean that we must build our “vote” on another foundation besides Jesus, or look to another figure for wisdom. What I believe we can do is look to the life, death, and teachings of Jesus as to the people Jesus was most concerned with, and to the actions he saw as being destruction. We then attempt to support candidates that are most closely aligned.

Key pieces from the gospel of Matthew 25, for instance, include: concern for the poor and hungry, prisoners, etc… Who in our current political scene most closely align with such a Matt 25 ethic? That to me is the right kind of question.

But wondering who Jesus would vote for back in the day doesn’t compute: he was saying in every way possible that he was king of a new kind of kingdom, and that meant that Caesar was not.

Carpenter:
Paul, not Jesus, made the claim that government was ordained by God, and it was not Democracy he was referring to. There are NO instances in the New Testament of any of the Disciples being called to determine government policy in any way, only policies within their congregations. America is definitely and Constitutionally NOT a congregation. No matter how many Separation deniers you dig up to mislead about “evidence” that they did not mean what they said, you cannot deny that State Religion was totally taboo in the Constitution, plain and simple.
There is NO Biblical basis for using your vote to impose religious values in law. That is why the Founders made a point of using Ethical arguments (how we act affects others, not what pleases or displeases God) in their defense of the New Constitution, and in the formulation of laws, and the claim that our actions affect others if God goes all Sodom and Gomorrah on us does not qualify as an ethical argument.
Where Jesus’ teachings do overlap with secular ethics is in the basic notion of equal rights and equal protection under the law (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Also, Do not kill, do not steal and do not bear false witness are all ethical as well as moral, but it is the ethical reason that makes it a good law that happens to also be moral in your belief system.

yes Jesus not only endorsed the Roman government to kill and drive all his people out in the desolation of the temple but also kill Christians for near 300 years… while government was imoportant for order and other services it was really just as always been a bunch of gangsters running things to their own profit… it has always proven to be so. We just can’t help it.. it’s in our nature to behave just like the predatory animals which we consider to be just the beasts of the field…

This is to show us that no matter what government we have we will degenrate to the place where we are headed now..We’ve already had one civil war and it looks to me that down the road 30 years from now as things continue we will have another..

we are believing our own lies about freedoms… we not feel the need to shove our religion down the others throat..

before he went to that cross he informed a rich young man that he should sell all his possessions and take up his cross and follow him.
theres a lot of things Christians are doing today , but how many are doing that? I’d like to know .

[…] that “major surgery” is required for we Christians to faithfully follow the Public Jesus.You can read the full article & visit Marty’s blog here. Filed Under: Uncategorized Leave a Comment « Take it and read it Leave a Comment Cancel […]

Interesting review. Even though I did not read the book, never even heard of it, the premise presented in the review probably tells me enough in that, specifically, combining of religion and politics is OK. To me, that is the essential mistake that a number of societies have made over the centuries, and why there are, today, many, but not enough, nations where the separation between Church and State has been imposed. In my opinion, religious beliefs are strictly personal, and are not, in any way, to be considered Public. Most people who publicly profess, and proclaim to be Christians, turn out to be not, they are posers who consider themselves to be better than others and should be treated according to their selfish desires. So, best keep it private, please, for the good that can come from the religious philosophies.

Menno, can you tell me your thoughts on the quote I used in the review: “God belongs in the public square because the public square belongs to God.”
I hear you suggesting that compartmentalizing our lives is not just ok, it is to be preferred. Whereas Suttle is recommending that we integrate our faith into all areas of life precisely because God is Lord of all areas of life.
None of which precludes that church and state are combined, rather quite separate.

The problem with human language and human logic is that we can’t communicate truth, we must communicate descriptions of truth, so we wind up extrapolating more than the truth from our understanding of the description.

“The Public Square belongs to God” is an obvious truth to anyone who belives that everything, everywhere belongs to God, but in making the distinction, we imply that in specifically belongs to God, when in fact, it implies that the Steel Mill belongs to God, and the Federal Reserve belongs to God, and the army tanks belong to God, the money in Mitt’s Swill account, ad nauseum. There is no meaning left in such a statement if it is intended to prove some point.

However, all of understanding is, not so much compartmentalized, but layered. If the Public Square belongs to God, it is not mine. It is not yours, and it does not even belong to His Church. But just as I may own land that is part of a county which is part of a state which is … Then how the land “belongs to me” is in a kind of stewardship with benefits, and so it belongs to God at a more foundational level, but belongs to me several layers up. I don’t have the right to ruin it for the deeper layered owners, but I am the one who determins proper stewardship.

So, the Steward of the Public Square in the USA is layered above a Constitutionally Secular stewarship. Christians do not have the ownership rights to bypass that layer just because there are other layers. They can be Christian in the public square, but they cannot declare it a Christian Public square, nor use it to exclude others from the same rights of use of that public square.

I belive that you depart from the correct establishment of religion in what our great nation first proposed and enacted as law in it’s first amendmetn which to me si a statematn in itself…That Congress shall pass or make no law respecting the estsablishment of a religon neither prevent the free exercise thereof..

This menas that “Government would in no way participate in religious activities; but would also do nothing to prevent it’s citizens from practicing religious activities as long as those activities do not infringe upon the rights of others in our society..

it’s really very simple…
but our porblem today is that for some reason STONEY GROUND and THORNY GROUND (from the parable fo the sower) are seeking to impose their religious beliefs on others in our society , no matterh what others may like it or not…
This puts the true idea of Christianity in a rather unfavorable public light…

Questions for dialogue
I’m very interested to know how a cruciform ethic plays itself out when electing the leader of the most militaristically powerful empire the world has ever seen. How does Public Jesus help me deconstruct core issues like militarism, imperialism, rampant capitalism, racism and anti-immigrant policies, health care, poverty-reduction, mass incarceration, etc… and help me choose a new Caesar? Who should the Christian vote for? Or do we vote at all?
He clearly differentiates the kingdom of this world from the kingdom of God; but we still need to address the ancient criticism of such an Anabaptist approach that this amounts to sectarianism. He clearly states “While Jesus’s kingdom is not from this world, it most certainly extends to this world and is most certainly for this world” but it remains for us to discern what degree of engagement we can afford. I would have found his Vocation chapter even more helpful had he moved beyond his formalistic approach and asked if in today’s culture there are jobs Christians should, and perhaps should not, engage.
I’m also unclear on what we have to say to the state, and on how we might say it. Are we able to say both yes and no to the state, or only no? I would assume that following Public Jesus demands aptitude in practices of protest such as nonviolent civil disobedience, but also practices of affirmation such as voting and advocacy. Examples to illustrate engagement with the state would be very helpful.
Indeed, if Christians are called to live all of life in “cruciform” ways, is that also true for the type of government we attempt to craft? Can we call our government to more Christlike versions of Freedom, Justice and Peace? Is there any role for the government in such areas, or is everything from the state antithetical to the way of Jesus? What are we to do when Caesar’s kingdom and virtues are in direct challenge of God’s kingdom and its virtues?
Finally, down here in Houston it’s easy to forget that we don’t live in a “Christian Nation” and never did. So I find of immense value the “major surgery” you invite us to. What value do you find in conversations about Post-Christendom and living from the margins? Do you think our Christian mission is to “reach” (or re-reach) our cities for Christ, or learn to live as the prophetic minority?

The earliest remnant of the Church migrated and fled from place to place to escape persecution and extinction. The hatred of these believers came from the governments of this world toward a people who rightly claimed to be citizens of another jurisdiction not subject to the laws or leaders of that country. Their Kingdom was not of this world but had been placed in the physical world to remain faithful and “if possible” live in peace. Those Christ-followers who fled carried with them the written and oral traditions that the modern church now labels extreme, sepratist, and legalistic. With each migration there were some who fell away and stayed in spiritual Babylon still claiming to be Christian while adopting the pagan practices, holy days, scripture changes, and devotion to and marks of the world governments. This is what has became the apostate church we have today.

Txnglf,
Thanks for your comments. This is likely true of the Anabaptists, a faith family of which i am a part. From the time of the Reformation, the Radicals (as they are sometimes known) were threatened, tortured and murdered, oppressed. And thus they migrated from place to place looking for the safety of freedom of religion.

And yes, I think Suttle’s idea of “major surgery” is what is needed to differentiate between true Jesus-faith and the watered down, accomodationist, nationalistic faiths that masquerade as Christianity.